- (1.) The sole question raised in this revision petition is whether on reference by the Land Acquisition Collector, under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Court can order the deposit of compensation in terms of Section 31 of the Act in Court by a party, who had already received the compensation from the Collector.
(2.) The conspectus of facts giving rise to the above question are that the land in dispute was acquired and the award was pronounced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 17 3.1986. On 27-3-1986 Kora Ram respondent raised objections under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Act, claiming title to the extent of one-half of the compensation amount. The Land Acquisition Collector paid compensation to the tune of Rs 1,07,000/- to the petitioner. The respondents also preferred a claim under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector made a reference under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Act, of the claim of Kora Ram to the Court for determination of the title of Kora Ram as well as the apportionment of the amount of compensation. The claim of Gobind Ram for enhancement of compensation, was also referred to the Court.
(3.) During pendency of the reference before the Court, Kora Ram respondent preferred an application to the Court, inter alia stating that the Collector had no jurisdiction to disburse the compensation to Gobind Ram petitioner, in view of the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Act as a dispute had been raised by him with respect to the title of Gobind Ram to the acquired land to the extent of his half share. Prayer was made that he be directed to deposit the compensation of Rs. 1,07,736/- received by him, before the District Judge during the pendency of the reference and the final determination of the title of Kora Ram The Additional District Judge. vide his impugned order dated 7-6-1988 directed Gobind Ram to deposit the amount of compensation received by him, holding that the Collector was not justified in disbursing the said amount to Govind Rarn, in view of Section 31(2) of the Act, which was mandatory. Section 32(2) of the Act reads as under : "31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court (1) xx xx xx (2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted: Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount : Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under Section 18 Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may received the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto". It was observed that payment of compensation to Gobind Ram inspite of specific bar of Section 31(2) of the Act amounts to an error committed by the Tribunal on the face of it and no party can be made to suffer on account of the error of the Court or the Tribunal. The learned Court relied on Hitkarini Sabha, Jabalpur V. Corporation of the City of Jabalpur, 1959 AIR(MP) 339and Jog Raj etc. V. Banarsi Dass alias Bane Gopal (deceased) etc., 1978 CurLJ 232.;